US court ruling tightens up on abortions

Lawyer Blogs

[##_1L|1319748527.jpg|width="131" height="91" alt=""|_##]The US Supreme Court has signalled a shift towards a more conservative approach to abortion by upholding a nationwide ban on a procedure that pro-life activists regard as infanticide. The court ruled on Wednesday by five votes to four to allow to stand a law passed by the Republican-controlled Congress in 2003 that bans the type of termination of pregnancy known by anti-abortionists as "partial-birth abortion".

It is the first time the court has intervened in the way abortions are carried out, as opposed to just over abortion itself.

The decision was viewed by both pro and anti-abortionists as an indication of a changing mood in the court towards a more conservative position.

"We're moving beyond putting roadblocks in front of abortions to actually prohibiting them," said Troy Newman, president of Operation Rescue, a national anti-abortion group.

He and other strategists said they hoped to introduce bills in a number of states that would:

- Ban all abortion of viable foetuses, unless the mother's life is endangered.
- Ban mid and late-term abortion for foetal abnormality, such as Down syndrome or a malformed brain.
- Require doctors to tell patients explicitly what an abortion will involve and show them ultrasound images of the foetus.
- Lengthen abortion waiting periods so women must reflect on such counselling.

It is far from certain that the Supreme Court would uphold all these proposals, but anti-abortion activists feel momentum is on their side.

For more than 30 years, since the Roe v Wade case in 1973 established abortion as a constitutional right, the court has tended to reject any attempt to restrict access to terminations.

What appears to have been crucial in tipping the court's attitude was the retirement last year of Sandra Day O'Connor from the nine-member panel, and her replacement, at President George Bush's instigation, by the more conservative Samuel Alito.

Abortion-rights lawyer Katherine Grainger predicted the ruling would "open the floodgates" in state after state.

"The state's interest in the foetus has now been elevated above the woman's health," said Ms Grainger, who directs state policy for the Centre for Reproductive Rights. "States are going to push the boundaries and try to restrict access on all fronts."

The procedure that was challenged involves doctors partially removing the foetus from a woman's uterus and then crushing or cutting into its skull while it is still in the woman's body. Partial-birth abortions are allowed only for medical reasons and are applied to terminations after 12 weeks.

Related listings

  • Six more plead guilty in aftermath of immigration raid

    Six more plead guilty in aftermath of immigration raid

    Lawyer Blogs 04/19/2007

    Six more former workers arrested during a raid of the Swift & Co. meatpacking plant in Cactus pleaded guilty to federal charges this week and could go to prison. The six entered pleas in federal court in Amarillo on Tuesday, the U.S. Attorney's O...

  • DOJ Requires Divestitures of Amsted Industries Inc

    DOJ Requires Divestitures of Amsted Industries Inc

    Lawyer Blogs 04/19/2007

    [##_1L|1174608953.jpg|width="150" height="128" alt=""|_##]The Department of Justice today announced that it has reached a settlement that will require Chicago-based Amsted Industries Incorporated to divest certain assets in order to remedy harm to co...

  • Woman sues town after falling in to friend's grave

    Woman sues town after falling in to friend's grave

    Lawyer Blogs 04/18/2007

    A Georgia woman is suing the town of Highlands and a Macon County funeral home after she fell into the open grave of her friend in a town-owned cemetery.Marian May, of Marietta, Ga., fell into the grave of Jean Murphy Henderson in June 2004 while try...

Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC

A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party

Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party

However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.

Business News

St Peters, MO Professional License Attorney Attorney John Lynch has been the go-to choice for many professionals facing administrative sanction. >> read